UNC Needs Reality Check

Oil rich nation Saudi Arabia which is far wealthier than Trinidad and Tobago in a clear depature from it's decade old generous welfare system has moved to slash subsidies due to the fall in oil prices.  Long accustomed to cheap utilities Saudi's were shocked when their government told them they have to pay extra for fuel, electricity, water and plane tickets. Prices on fuel products were increased by 50%. Saudi Finance Minister is quoted as saying "We have to rationalize unneccessary spending...this requires changes to focus on essential spending.

In light of this information citizens must question pronouncements made by the UNC Opposition Leader in criticizing the Dr. Rowley led PNM Government for first implementing small increases in the price of fuel and seeking to make savings in social programmes such as the food card and free school books for children.

The attempt by Mrs. Persad-Biessessar to blame the new PNM government for our economic woes in light of the excessive waste which occured under her stewardship and in light of prevailing global economic conditions has left many citizens in bewilderment. Is it that the irrational comments coming from the UNC camp is a glimpse of the disaster that awaited us had we retained them in Government?

If the UNC was truly serious about governance they will not at this time be criticizing the PNM Government for making neccessary cuts, they would instead be doing its own work in identifying additional areas of waste/unnecessary spending and pointing these out to the PNM Government.

What we are witnessing from the UNC Opposition is it's continued failures as a political vehicle. The UNC has never been a Government in waiting but a political party in waiting because they lack the necessary Governance philosophy to be a "constructive" alternative. The philosophy and politics of the UNC has always bordered on anarchism, rendering them politically handicap. Thus they often miss obvious opportunities to demonstrate their political worth to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Notwithstanding the recent bruising internal elections, one thing remains abundantly clear, that the UNC and its political leader are in dire need of a reality check.

The Convenient Race Card

There is a phenomenon emerging in Trinidad and Tobago that has me totally flabbergasted. Everyone in Trinidad and Tobago knows that the core support of the PNM are people of African descent and the core support of the UNC are people of East Indian descent. The phenomenon to which I refer to is that every time the PNM is voted out of office, even when their loss is as catastrophic as what took place in 2010, no one claims it's because of race but the minute the UNC receives any opposition or rejection from the electorate the first thing to come out the mouths of UNC pundits is race. Why? 

The entire country literally threw the PNM out of Parliament giving the UNC controlled PP Government an overwhelming majority in the Central Government along with the two Tobago seats, not a single UNC pundit said the results of this win was because of race. Two and a half years into their governance and several "missteps" dragging them down (Reshmi; unexplained and failed State of Emergency; Section 34; total lack of transparency and accountablity), the population is up in arms over the PP Government's performance just as they were up in arms over the Manning led PNM, only this time we are being told it's because of the Prime Minister and her Government Minister's race. Why? 

I feel sorry for my Tobago brothers and sisters, after voting overwhelming for the PNM in Tobago in the 2013 THA elections the UNC pundits are coming out from the wood works and accusing Tobago of voting based on race. Where were these individuals when Tobago gave the PP Government the two Tobago seats in 2010? Where were these individuals when Tobago voted out the PNM in 1980 and did not vote them back into power until the year 2000, a whole twenty years after? To see the UNC pundits cry race after the outcome of the 2013 THA elections not only solidifies why they deserved to lose, it also shows up their total lack of understanding where Tobagonians and Tobago culture is concerned. 

Even the Chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission Dr. Indira Rampersad is making the colossal mistake of interpreting the Tobago vote as a race vote. She is quoted as saying "People are still focused on political parties and personalities as opposed to issues. It may not be just political parties and personalities. It may be another issue, an issue of ethnicity and race. These issues play out in T&T all the time and some people discount it as an issue." First of all as someone who is commissioner of the Equal Opportunity Commission I can't understand how the goodly Dr. could make such a biased and one sided nuanced statement and go unchallenged. If she is going to accuse Tobagonians of voting based on race then she has to equally accuse the UNC dominanted Partnership of having a race agenda in Tobago to ensure an ethnic influence comprised of the UNC support base. To accuse one ethnic group of voting based on race while absolving the other ethnic group of having any race motive discredits anything Dr. Rampersad says and she looses all appearances of objectivity. Dr. Rampersad's claim is also a two edge sword as it tacitly implies that the PP Government is not that multi-ethnic political party it is being touted to be but rather an Indo dominated political party with a few Non-Indos for cosmetic appearances, because if the People's Partnership was truly multi-ethnic then the issue of race would and should never arise.....over to you goodly Dr. 

It is also interesting that Dr. Rampersad did not see the following as pertinent issues for Tobagonians:- PP Government's total disrespect to Tobagonians by putting forward a bill regarding internal self government on the eve of an election, a bill that does not adequately address internal self government for Tobago and would deprive Tobago of it's resources via the stated 11 nautical miles; Ashworth Jack's inability to explain the funding of his home and provide sufficient evidence to appease Tobagonians that he is not receiving political favours behind closed doors which he undoubtedly would have had to repay; Ashworth Jack's further lack of integrity by refusing to observe the law of Trinidad and Tobago and file his declaration of assets and income with the Integrity Commission. For Dr. Rampersad to totally down play these issues and turn this into an election of race calls into question her own qualification of being able to adequately analyse political issues. For her to be aware of these various issues and say that Tobagonians voted on race and not issues is to insult the intelligence of Tobagonians, and I'm saying that if Dr. Rampersad was running for Chief Secretary of Tobago she too would have suffered a catastrophic loss and it would have nothing to do with her ethnicity. 

A twelve year old in Tobago can tell you that Tobagonians voting for a party they rejected for 20 years has nothing to do with the ethnic composition of the People's Partnership Government, but everything to do with the PP's misunderstanding of Tobago's culture. You cannot win votes in Tobago by bribing them with fancy ads, having helicopters invading the people's air space unnecessarily and you certainly do not win votes by attacking Tobagonians. Tobagonians hold it as their sacred right to criticize their own, as a Trini I learnt that the hard way when I went over there to work for some years. By attacking Orville London and Dr. Rowley on the most spurious of allegations the PP Government secured their own demise. Tobagonians although being part of a unitary state, do not recognise their leader as being that of the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, their leader to govern Tobago affairs is the Chief Secretary. The PP Government's constant disregard for the THA and total disrespect they showed to Mr. London as well as the Prime Minister acting as if it was she contesting to be Chief Secretary and not Ashworth Jack all caused the severe beating the TOP suffered at the polls. 

So to the UNC pundits I say to you, the loss of the THA election had nothing to do with race and everything to do with your leader's colossal misunderstanding of Tobago's culture. Further to that, your convenient and constant reference to race every time the electorate rejects a politican of East Indian descent is not only distasteful to Tobagonians, but also to the Non-Indo electorate in Trinidad. If it is in the minds of the UNC pundits that as long as East Indian politicians do not control and dominate political life in Trinidad and Tobago it means the rest of the electorate are racist then I dare say, these pundits need to do some introspection because when they point a finger at others there are four fingers pointing right back at them.

Highway Standoff A Governance Issue

Without venturing into whether Dr. Kublalsingh is right or wrong in his position regarding the issue of the Point Fortin highway a particular position of the Government has intrigued me. Dr. Rambachan along with Jack Warner and others have accused Dr. Kublalsingh's actions as being "political". My question to the members of the People's Partnership Government is "so what?" What is wrong with Dr. Kublalsingh being political? Does this government not understand that for it to even grace the halls of power it required citizens of this country to be political and engage in a political process of electing them? 

Why is it that the People's Partnership Government seems so afraid of citizens becoming enlightened and engaging the government on a civil level? If it's one thing this present group belonging to the People's Partnership Government has demonstrated to the citizens of this country is that as a nation we seem to have a breed of politicians who are quite contented with having citizens exercise their democratic rights just once every four years and then simply granting absolute unquestionable power to them so they can rule over us like Lords and Serfs without question or accountability. 

This latest stand off between Dr. Kublalsingh and government goes deeper than the need for a highway by some, it goes deeper than economic and social consequences albeit very relevant. This stand off between a lone civilian and a government ever eager to display it's arrogance and contempt for the citizenry strikes at the very heart of our democracy and the type of governance that exist in our Republic. The question is are Trinbagonians satisfied with being mere spectators in the affairs of their nation or are they prepared to grow up and take charge of their destiny and tell the politicians who have no regard for their voice exactly where to get off?

People's Partnership celebration an erosion of democratic principles

I am of the opinion that last Thursday's celebration by the PP Government concerning their two years in office, is a breach of democratic principles. Since when is it the practice of a government to celebrate what they are constitutionally mandated to do and what they are paid to do? As far as I am aware it is only in monarchies, dictatorships and despotic fanatical countries like North Korea where the achievements of leaders and government institutions are celebrated. Can any of you imagine Barack Obama hosting a million dollar celebration in Time Square to tell the people of America about some community centre he built in Oklahoma? Or David Cameron holding a celebratory rally in London to talk about some colour me orange project he launched in Essex? The practice is unheard of and is also inappropriate and smacks of political 'never see clumsy' and immaturity. 

The Prime Minister has stated that the purpose of the celebration was to 'account to the people'. If my memory serves me right, in the Westminster system Parliament is the institution by which the elected government of the day accounts to the people. Having this discussion last week with a pro PP colleague they jeered at me saying I just vex cause the PP use their money to throw their celebration and account to the people. It is then I indicated to the person that it is exactly that which reveals the perversity of the PP Government's actions. Why must the elected Government of the day spend private funds to account to the people of the country when they can do so freely under the constitutionally charged institutions such as the Parliament? Why can't they via their weekly Cabinet meetings tell the public what they have decided to do as a government and what they have done? Instead they opted to throw a big fete which climaxed akin to that of an all inclusive carnival fete and at the end of the day all they have done is further erode the democratic mechanisms of this country and the citizens of this country are still non the wiser of their achievements.

And while the PP was busy frolicking Thursday night, a CAL Chairman appointed by themselves requested a $20,000 leasing of a luxury vehicle for himself, this from a state enterprise which has incurred a $339 million loss and which he was appointed to steer back to a viable financial status, not withstanding the fact that the 2011 State Enterprises Performance Manual clearly states "company cars or car loans should not be granted to Chairmen or directors". Criminals continue to run amok and the economy is stagnant. It seems we have now become a country which celebrates underachievement and mediocrity.

Kamla being more than dishonest with Statistics

With regard the poll conducted by the Ansa Mcal Institute of Psychology published last Sunday, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bisessar was quoted in Express April 11 as stating that if one "Adds the excellent , good, fair ratings - its almost 80%, so the government is doing fine." Now it is either the Prime Minister thinks the citizens she presides over are complete idiots or she was being deliberately misleading and having no compunction about it whatsoever. A standard five pupil can discern that the Prime Minister's pronouncements makes absolutely no sense and it is a deliberate attempt at polluting the poll results. The following were the Ansa Mcal Poll results:-

Ratings

Overall, how do you rate the performance of the Government to date?

Excellent 4%

Good 30%

Fair 47%

Poor 15%

Extremely Poor 4%

Ratings

If a general election was held today, which political party would you vote for?

UNC 5%

COP 3%

NAR 1%

PP 34%

MSJ 1%

PNM 13%

NONE 25%

DON’T KNOW 19%

NEW PARTY 1%

Ratings

How do you rate the performance of the Prime Minister to date?

Excellent 11%

Good 31%

Fair 42%

Poor 13%

Extremely Poor 3%

If by the Prime Minister's logic we are to add the good and fair ratings of two of the three questions, it would show that the government got almost an 80% rating and thus is doing well, then it stands to reason that if one is adding the good and fair ratings one must deduct the poor and extremely poor ratings to get a more objective view. This would show that the ratings according to the Prime Minister's logic were in fact (30+47-15-4) = 58% and (31+42-13-3) = 57%. Clearly as one further analyses the stats using the Prime Minister's logic it is blatantly clear that the PP Government barely made a passing grade. Out of the 512 people questioned, it would mean that only 296.96 and 291.84 persons gave the PP Government a fair to good rating. 512/2 = 256, one must therefore ask the question what exactly is Mrs. Persad Bisessar boasting about.

It is also instructive to note that the Prime Minister totally ignored the excellent ratings of 4% and 11% respectively, is this an indication that the Prime Minister is quite contented with mediocrity and does not concern herself with exceeding expectations? Of 512 respondents 4% would be 20.48 and 11% would be 56.32 persons, if I remember correctly in primary school when one's report card said "Good" or "Fair" for the term one usually went home with a B, B- or a C. And the most glaring omission of the Prime Minister was the ratings related to the question "If a general election was held today, which political party would you vote for?" Out of 512 respondents a whopping 5% (25.6 persons) said they will vote for the UNC, the party to which the Prime Minister belongs, and 13% (66.56 persons) said they will vote for the opposition PNM. Granted the PP got 34% one must beg the question if the Prime Minister is contented with the fact that the only way the party to which she belongs can win an election is by currying favour with other political parties for the sole purpose of defeating the PNM, because as a stand alone political party the PNM is the only party that got the highest rating.

I would therefore caution the Prime Minister, that the next time she opts to play with statistics to fool the population she should do so with a bit more cunning, as you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can't fool all of the people all the time.

Questions for Kamla..

Out of curiosity my dear Prime Minister, how do you know that only 7% of the scholarship recipients were of East Indian descent? Did your government conduct a DNA examination of the scholarship recipients? I have many East Indian friends with non-seemingly East Indian names so I would hope that you did not base your accusation exclusively on the recipient's surnames. Is this the modus operandi of your government Mrs. Persad-Bissessar? Governance by eugenics and ethnicity? I noticed in your accusation you said "7% of the recipients were of East Indian descent and the other 93% were of non East Indian descent", perhaps you should clarify to both the population and Anil Roberts what you mean by "Non East Indian", because when you said it Anil Roberts was heard by the entire nation shouting over your voice asking, "not even a Dougla?". I would have thought that non East Indian would mean Afros, Douglas, Syrians, Chinese, Caucasian etc, but it seems Anil Roberts begs to differ.

Why were you only capable of giving a specific percentage of the East Indians that received scholarships but you couldn't tell the population how many Africans, Chinese, Syrians, Douglas and Caucasians were given scholarships? By deliberately withholding information on what ethnic group or groups made up the 93% I fail to understand your claims of racial discrimination. Also what does this mean of the 7% of East Indians who received scholarships? How were they able to secure scholarships from an alleged discriminatory government (according to you)? Did this 7% betray the larger East Indian community to secure these scholarships? Now that former Minister of Culture Ms Marlene Mc Donald has indicated in Parliament that it was a five member committee, two of which are of East Indian descent were the one's responsible for interviewing the scholarship awardees, is our Prime Minister indicating that these two citizens of East Indian descent aided and abetted the PNM in engaging in racial discrimination?

Apart from considering the recipient's ethnicity did you or your government contemplate any other reasons why they were selected? Are the person's selected from a particular economic stratum? Was the government offering scholarships for courses which it deemed priority? And while we are on the topic of the ethnic composition of tertiary education students, does this mean that the People's Partnership Government is going to launch an investigation into why so many of the persons admitted into the medical school at UWI are of East Indian descent? And last but not least, forgive me if I seem to be slow, but could you please explain to me of what relevance is the PNM's awarding of scholarships to the current $50b budget debate? How does the PNM awarding scholarships to only 7% East Indians bear any relevance to the fact that your government is about to once again embark upon deficit budgeting in what is the largest budget in the history of this country, and to date the citizens of this country still have not received a lucid explanation as to how your government intends to utilize this money. You do remember that this is a budget debate don't you?

State of Emergency Lacking Constitutional Validity

It has been two weeks since the People’s Partnership Government declared a state of emergency and citizens still remain in the dark as to the reasons for having our constitution suspended and thus being deprived of our fundamental democratic and constitutional rights. As per section 1 (9) of our constitution “within three days of making the proclamation, the President shall deliver to the Speaker for presentation to the House of Representatives a statement setting out the specific grounds on which the decision to declare the existence of a state of public emergency was based”.

Mr. Sandy in his contribution to the debate on the motion to extend the state of emergency for three months repeated the Attorney General’s claim that a major crisis was averted and that there was an immediate threat and endangerment to public safety. To date however, both Mr. Ramlogan and Mr. Sandy have refused to give this nation the “specific grounds” on which this state of emergency was called. In a most ingenious way, the Minister of National Security resorted to the cover of “matters of national security” as his reasons for not telling the citizens of this country why exactly a state of emergency was called.

The refusal of the Attorney General and Minister of National Security to inform this country as to the “specific grounds” for having declared a state of emergency does not seem to be in accordance with our constitution. The constitution is quite clear the President must tell our Parliament the “SPECIFIC GROUNDS” on which the state of emergency was called. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that if the state of emergency pertains to a matter of national security that the government can withhold information from citizens. As a matter of fact that entire notion proffered by the Attorney General and Minister of National Security is vulgarly nonsensical as the very purpose of having the provision for a state of emergency in our constitution is to deal with matters of national security in whatever form they may arise, be it natural disaster, disease pandemic or an attack on our democratic institutions by way of a coup.

In seeking to allay justifiable concerns as to the governments declaration and handling of the state of emergency, during his debate Mr. Sandy recapped all the previous state of emergencies our country has been under. What Mr. Sandy did not say in our Parliament as he ought to have, is of all our previous states of emergencies the citizens of this country knew exactly why we had a state of emergency. This is the first time in the history of our country that a state of emergency has been called and citizens have not been appraised as to the ‘specific grounds’ for declaring such. Therefore, what this People’s Partnership Government has done is set a dangerous precedent where any government in the future can call a state of emergency to further their agenda, be it genuine, political or even oppressive and all that government would have to do to circumvent the constitutional and democratic rights of citizens of this country is use the cloak of “matters of national security” and thus avoid accountability to the electorate.

Whether one is in support of the ‘reasoning’ behind this government’s state of emergency or against it, one must take note of this dangerous precedent that has been set by the People’s Partnership Government and its implications for our democratic survival. It seems foolhardy that in order to get a temporary relief from crime because of the abject failure of our security services that we should allow such a colossal undermining of our constitutional mechanisms. Quite frankly I’m not sure which frightens me the most, the government’s reckless manipulation of our constitutional apparatus or citizen’s ignorance to the implications of government’s actions.

Trinbagonians would do well to heed the words of Netsanet Belay, Director of Policy Research at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation regarding our state of emergency, “The State of Emergency, inappropriate legislation and broad implementation of a curfew represent a disproportionate interference with fundamental rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly enshrined both in the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago and throughout international human rights law. After just two weeks, Trinbagonian citizens risk signing away civic freedoms that have taken forty-nine years of hard struggle and nation-building to win. Persistent crime and personal insecurity are very real threats to many Caribbean nations and need to be taken seriously. Nevertheless the trend we are witnessing across the Caribbean region of using disproportionate security-based measures will only weaken trust in state institutions and could lead to a virtual close down of space for citizens and civil society participation.”

Anand Ramlogan The Transformer

I am without a doubt convinced that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is a transformer, our own local version of 'Bumble Bee'. As the current Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is in his glee, using non-bailable law such as the Anti Gang Act to detain alleged criminals. But this was the same Anand Ramlogan who wrote a long diatribe against the anti kidnapping bill and it's consequences re: it being a non bailable offence. Now Anand is singing a totally different tune. But you see unlike most Trinidadians my memory eh short! I WILL HIT YOU FOR SIX RAMLOGAN. SEE THE FOLLOWING TRINIDAD GUARDIAN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY NONE OTHER, THE INCUMBENT ATTORNEY GENERAL ANAND RAMLOGAN ON THE 1ST AUGUST 2004!

"Manning’s knee-jerk crime plan" - by ANAND RAMLOGAN (Before being appointed Attorney General and suffering from a delusional swelling of the male part!)

PM Manning unveiled his great crime plan last week. It was greeted with a series of brutal murders and demands for “less talk, more action.” The headline grabber was the “no bail for kidnappers” strategy.

This knee-jerk legislative reaction to what is admittedly a frightening problem is one that must be cautiously studied. The erosion of human rights and the enlargement of State power (that can later be misused and abused) normally take place in the height of a crisis, with the full support of the people, because rational thought is overwhelmed by panic and fear. (In 2004 who would have thought that Anand in one of his editorials to the Guardian was simply describing the state in which he would have the country when he is appointed Attorney General. These words adequately describes the People's Partnership Government's state of emergency)

At present, kidnapping is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. Though it is a bailable offence, magistrates have the power to refuse bail under the Bail Act, because of the seriousness of the offence and its prevalence in society.

Carlos Manickchand and his gang were, for example, refused bail, as have many others who have been charged for kidnapping. Persons charged for car theft and drug offences have routinely been refused bail by magistrates.

A magistrate can set a high bail that is beyond the reach of the accused person, and he would not be out the following morning. We see this happening every day in our courts, so why all the fuss now? (Why all the fuss indeed Anand? Why did your government call a state of emergency to detain criminals when you knew before you even became Attorney General that a magistrate can set a high bail if need be?)

If persons charged with kidnapping offences are being released on bail too frequently, then perhaps our magistrates are setting bail too low, and the Chief Justice needs to issue some guidelines. (I GUESS THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH OUR MAGISTRATES MAY HAVE BEEN SETTING BAIL TOO LOW FOR)

Surely, the seriousness and prevalence of the offence must weigh heavily in the magistrate's mind and tilt the scales towards imposition of onerous bail conditions in appropriate cases.

A non-bailable offence means that once arrested and charged, you will remain behind bars until your trial, regardless of the paucity or strength of the evidence against you. It’s almost as if you're presumed guilty, rather than innocent. In effect, politicians could use it to remove and incarcerate political opponents from society; police officers could use it to get rid of a troublesome boyfriend or husband to access a “slack” wife or girlfriend. (YET STILL HE IS TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT UNDER A StATE OF EMERGENCY THE POLICE AND ARMY WILL NOT ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY, AND TO ADD TO THAT HE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE CLAIMED COULD BE DONE, HE IS PRESUMING THE GUILT OF ALL THOSE THUS DETAINED UNDER THIS FARCICAL STATE OF EMERGENCY!)

There are very few non-bailable offences in our law. These are: murder, treason, piracy or hijacking, and any offence for which the penalty is death. A non-bailable offence means that once arrested and charged, you will remain behind bars until your trial, regardless of the paucity or strength of the evidence against you.

It could easily be misused and abused, because the judiciary would have no power to grant bail, and the ultimate power to deprive a citizen of his liberty is given to the police, who can charge on the flimsiest basis.

It places the liberty of citizens in the hands of the police, because once someone is charged for a non-bailable offence, he/she would be amputated from society and incarcerated like a convicted criminal.

Pressing the right buttons, a drug dealer could easily manipulate the police service to get rid of competitors, so that he could control their turf.

If every time a particular crime increases we allow our politicians to fool us with the knee-jerk reaction of new legislation to make the offence non-bailable, then car theft, robbery with violence and drug offences should all be non-bailable.(ANAND RAMLOGAN, YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU AND AUNTY KAMLA MADE THE VERY SAME CAR THEFT, ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES AS PER THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE ANTI GANG ACT WHICH YOUR GOVERNMENT IS TAKING CREDIT FOR HAVING LAID IN PARLIAMENT? YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU AND KAMLA TRYING TO FOOL US WITH THIS KNEE-JERK STATE OF ABUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? OH SHUCKS....AH MEAN STATE OF EMERGENCY?)

If every time a particular crime increases we allow our politicians to fool us with the knee-jerk reaction of new legislation to make the offence non-bailable, then car theft, robbery with violence and drug offences should all be non-bailable.

The trauma inflicted on a victim, whose home is robbed while his/her children are tied and beaten to near death, is not any less than that of a parent whose child is kidnapped. It's no use making qualitative distinctions in the effects of serious crimes.

It is a serious thing for the State to deny an accused bail in circumstances where the backlog of criminal cases in the magistrates’ court system means that an innocent man could be jailed for several years before he is even given an opportunity to prove his innocence. (YET STILL YOU AND GIBBS BOASTING OF HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU HAVE DETAINED UNDER THIS FARCICAL STATE OF STUPIDITY ....OH SHUCKS AH MEAN STATE OF EMERGENCY. ARE THESE ALLEGED CRIMINALS GOING TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE MR. TRANSFORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL?)

By the time he wins his case, his whole life is ruined. The main weapon in the fight against crime is an efficient and expeditious system of criminal justice. (NOTICE IN 2004 ANAND RAMLOGAN WAS NOT ESPOUSING NOR WAS HE PROMOTING ANY STATE OF EMERGENCY!)

Part of what motivates kidnappers on bail to commit more crimes is the long delay in trying and convicting them. We are all falling into a trap cleverly set by a clueless PNM. (SEEMS THE ONLY TRAP WE FELL FOR IS VOTING FOR A DECEITFUL LYING GOVERNMENT)

The problem is not the lack of laws, but rather the lack of penetrating policing and enforcement of the existing laws.

“No bail for kidnappers” will deflect the nation's attention from the incompetence of the Government, the impotence of the police, as the spotlight once again shifts to Panday. If he refuses to support this amendment, the nation would be so busy “ponging” and “cussin'” him, that no one will have time to focus on the real issue of the Government's inability to deal with crime. (I WONDER WHOSE INCOMPETENCE ANAND RAMLOGAN IS CURRENTLY DEFLECTING? OH GOSH THEY CUSS PANDAY, YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU CUSSING ROWLEY FOR CRITICIZING YOUR ILLEGAL STATE OF EMERGENCY? EH ANDAND?)

The mad rush to make new laws every time we have a problem is a reflection of the idle and bankrupt intellectual state of the PNM. The unthinking rush to embrace and welcome this “no bail policy” for kidnapping might be a reflection of our desperation and helplessness.

There's no point in making new laws when the present ones aren't properly utilised. (NOR IS THERE ANY POINT IN CALLING A STATE OF EMERGENCY WHEN LAWS SUCH AS THE ANTI GANG ACT, FIRE ARMS ACT AND THE FINANCIAL ACT AREN'T BEING PROPERLY UTILISED)

http://legacy.guardian.co.tt/archives/2004-08-01/ramlogan.html

State of Emergency An Abuse of The Constitution

I do not support a state of emergency and the suspension of my democratic and constitutional rights just so the police can do routine police raids. This state of emergency by the People's Partnership Government is ill advised and an abuse of our constitution. The state of emergency has yielded nothing to suggest it is worthwhile, arresting a few hundred persons and seizing a few grams of weed and cocaine does not justify the suspension of our constitution. Denying citizens of their constitutional and democratic rights is a serious issue and is not something that should be done flippantly. I heard the Attorney General justify the state of emergency because of the expected rise in violence that would have occurred because of a $22 million TT drug bust. My response to that is so what? In 2007 the US Justice Department made a drug bust of $45 million US dollars, TT $289 million and to date there has been no declaration of a state of emergency in the United States of America, a country which has more guns than T&T in any given state due to their constitution granting their citizens the right to bare arms!

Mr. Martin Daly made a very valid point on TV6 news on Tuesday night, one does not call a state of emergency to seize six guns, a few grams of illegal drugs and a hundred or so people. Even if I am to be generous and give them credit for finding to date just under ten fire arms with some ammunition and the few grams of drugs (no major drug or arms bust as of day three, no big drug financier arrested), is it that the hundred or so persons arrested are all going to be charged collectively for these few guns, ammunition and drugs? I ask because the government is beating their chest in triumph and claiming success in arresting/detaining these people, but has any of the legal luminaries in this country asked what crime these people have committed? Is it that once you have been held by the police under a farcical state of emergency you are automatically guilty? Have any of these men been taken before a court of law, successfully and judicial tried and convicted for a crime that will see them be locked away for a very long time? And if they have not been charged and tried by a court of law why is the government claiming victory? Is the government preempting the conviction of these men who have been detained? Is that legal and constitutional? Does anyone not find it strange that under a state of emergency where the government has the authority to go after any and every criminal that it is only men being loaded into the police vehicles? Are we a nation where it is only the male homo sapien that commits crime? If that is the case then our country is certainly replete with research material for any discerning anthropologist.

What is even more worrying is the fact that there was no need for a state of emergency when our Parliament inclusive of both Government and Opposition members passed in Parliament the Anti Gang Legislation which gives the police the authority to adequately address the crime situation in T&T without calling a state of emergency and depriving law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. Some of the police's authority under the act include but are not limited too :-

* The authority to arrest without a warrant any person he has reasonable cause to believe is a gang member or has reasonable cause to believe has committed an offence under this Act.

* The authority to enter with a warrant issued by a magistrate any dwelling house if he has reasonable cause to believe a gang member will be found in that dwelling house.

* The authority to enter "without" a warrant any place or premises not used as a dwelling house and search the same if he has reasonable cause a gang member will be found in such place or premises

* Notwithstanding any law to the contrary a police officer may detain without a warrant for a period not exceeding 24 hours any person who he reasonably suspects having committed an offense under this Act

* If a senior officer has reason to believe that detention of a person without charge is necessary to preserve evidence relating to an offence or to obtain such evidence by questioning the detained person the senior officer may apply to a magistrate for a detention order not exceeding 144 hours (6 days).

The sad part about this entire fiasco is the Opposition the main body responsible for keeping the government in check seemed to have been asleep on the job. However I was heartened to see Dr. Rowley finally espouse what I have been saying in my personal capacity for the past few days, that this state of emergency was not needed, is excessive and just simply does not make sense when we have the necessary legislation in place for the police to deal with the criminal element. True to form the Honourable Prime Minister has immediately criticized Dr. Rowley's claims saying the Anti Gang Legislation could not have been used by the government to carry out the current exercises under the state of emergency as the act is specifically geared towards 'gangs' and gang members. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is simply a case of the Prime Minister not only being pedantic with legal jargon but also insulting the intelligence of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. According to Cambridge's Online dictionary one of the definitions for a gang is "a group of criminals who work together". It's definition for a gangster is "a member of an organized group of criminals". What part of these definitions do not apply to the criminals operating in the various hot spots in T&T? They work together and consort with each other, they have a sophisticated communication network that includes BBming and texting, and they are well organized in the execution of their illicit activities. It therefore stands to reason that the Anti Gang Act was fully capable of being utilized to carry out the current operations of the security forces, more importantly the police service and not the army!

In addition the Anti Gang Act further states "For the purpose of this Act, it shall not be necessary to show that a particular gang, possesses, acknowledges or is known by a particular name, insignia, flag, means of recognition, secret signal or code, creed, belief, structure, leadership or command structure, method of operation or criminal enterprise, concentration or speciality, membership, age or other qualification, initiation rites, geographical or territorial situs, boundary or location, or other unifying mark, manner, protocol or method of expressing or indicating its membership when the gang's existence can be demonstrated by a preponderance of other admissible evidence, but any evidence reasonably tending to show or demonstrate the existence of or membership in a gang shall be admissable in any action or proceedings brought under this ACT!" In the Act a gang member is stated as "a person who belongs to a gang, or a person who knowingly acts in capacity of an agent for an accessory to, or voluntarily associates himself with any gang-related activity.....". The act further states that "gang-related activity means any criminal activity, enterprise, pursuit, or undertaking in relation to any of the offences listed in the First Schedule acquiesced in, or consented or agreed to, or directed, ordered, authorized, requested or ratified.

What all of this means is all the state has to do is prove one has committed an offence or engages in "gang-related activity" as is listed in the First Schedule of the Anti Gang Act and you can be convicted under this legislation as a gang member once you commit a gang related offence''! Some of the gang-related activity in the First Schedule are but not limited to :-

* Possession of imitation firearms in pursuance of any criminal offence

* Larceny of a motor vehicle

* Arson

* Receiving stolen goods

* Possession of bullet-proof vest, firearm or ammunition for benefit of gang

* Demanding money with menaces

* Murder

* Shooting or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, unlawful wounding

* Robbery, robbery with aggravation, robbery with violence

* Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

* Possession and use of a firearm or ammunition with intent to endanger life

* Possession of firearm or ammunition without licence certificate or permit

* Trafficking a dangerous drug or being in possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of trafficking

* Rape & grievous sexual assault

* Kidnapping & Kidnapping for ransom

With the above in mind I cannot fathom nor understand how our Prime Minister, our head of government, can publicly state that the Anti Gang Act could not have been used to deal with escalating crime situation which would have seen the police carrying out the very duties they are currently carrying out while our constitution and our democratic rights remained intact. I am very concerned by the fact that we had valid Parliamentary legislation in place to be used by the security services in the full operation of our constitution and rather than use this available legislation and the resources available to it to mobilize the police service in executing their duties, the government instead chooses to adopt what is known internationally as one of the most drastic acts a government can ever perpetuate against it's own citizens, a state of emergency. What is even more worrying is that our Head of State the President does not seem to have the necessary legal advisory team in place to review present legislation etc, which ought to be utilized to deal with a situation before calling a state of emergency.

Why is the government so hell bent on justifying this state of emergency when the results of it thus far shows that it is clearly not worthwhile as these so called 'successes' could have been achieved with a normal police raid under the Anti Gang Act? Why is it that the government seem to be engaging in a campaign of misinformation regarding the legislation and laws that were available to it as well as the capacity of said legislation to deal with the crime problem without interfering and suspending our country's constitution? No government should be allowed to flippantly call a state of emergency when all evidence suggests that they had absolutely no need too. This is a very dangerous precedent that the government has set and I'm very disappointed that the various legal luminaries and the opposition of this country all seem to have been caught with their pants down and the consequence of that lethargy of our respective political and legal vanguards may very well see the creation of a runaway government drunk on power.

Political Lip Service or Divided Government‏?

The People's Partnership Government through the Office of the Prime Minister sought to 'appear to' condemn the highly inflammatory and racially divisive remarks of Chairman of the Police Service Commission Mr. Nizam Mohammed, a condemnation that no doubt sought to act as a cooling agent to soothe the public out cry against Mr. Mohammed's unfortunate statements and 'insinuations' made in no other place than our country's highest office the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. The release from the Prime Minister's Office describes Mr. Mohammed's statements using some very strong adjectives and phrases such as "reckless, senseless, divisive and serving no purpose." The release continued to state that Mr. Mohammed's views "run against the very grain of the philosophy that now governs this country", presumably under the stewardship of Ms. Persad-Bissessar and the new People's Partnership Government and further stated that Mr. Mohammed must be held accountable for his inflammatory comments because the mission of the government is to embrace everyone.

Arguably the release from the Prime Minister's Office used all the right words to condemn Mr. Mohammed's inflammatory remarks yet that release fell short of informing the general public whether the Government which fiercely defended the appointment of the goodly gentleman in the first place, an appointment that was vehemently opposed to by the Opposition benches, whether they will now be seeking to revoke Mr. Mohammed's appointment as he has demonstrated to the entire nation his unsuitability for the position. This Government should not wait on the President to revoke Mr. Mohammed's appointment. It was this Government that insisted Mr. Mohammed be appointed to this position and therefore they should bear the responsiblity for Mr. Mohammed's reckless conduct and not put that burden on the President. The Government's statement without action is tantamount to a parent spending enormous amounts of energy severely berating a child for a transgression yet failing to discipline said child.

Further to that one would have thought that if the Government was to issue a strongly worded reprimand such as this and in light of the potentially destabilising effect of Mr. Mohammed's comments not only to the Police Service but to the country as a whole, that they would have held an emergency caucus to address the issue and come to some form of unanimity in condemning the comments. This however does not seem to be the case because apparently before the ink can dry on the Office of the Prime Minister's release, we have contrary claims being made by two Government Ministers in the form of Dr. Roodal Moonilal and Chandresh Sharma. In the case of Mr. Sharma, he has taken a most curious stance of blaming the media for the dilemma Mr. Mohammed finds himself, saying "There are times when every media in many parts of the world carry stories that are inaccurate or carry stories that did not at all times reflect the views of the presenter, so that we must at all times listen and not shoot the messenger".

Mr. Sharma's comments are certain to raise eyebrows as Mr. Mohammed's comments were broadcast live on national television via the Parliament Channel, therefore the entire country for the most part heard for themselves the offensive remarks of Mr. Mohammed. For instance can Mr. Sharma explain what Mr. Mohammed meant when he said 'we need protection'? Who is the 'WE' that Mr. Mohammed was referring to and protection from whom? And if Mr. Mohammed is indeed the messenger from where did the message originate? Who's message is he delivering? In addition if as Mr. Mohammed claims that the police service does not represent the ethnic composition of Trinidad and Tobago because there are 41% East Indians (Mr. Mohammed erroneously claimed 50%) and 39% Africans therefore the police service should not have so many Africans, can both Mr. Mohammed and Sharma explain why we have a caucasian Police Commissioner when that ethnic group is not more than 1% and the fact that the Commissioner is a foreigner to boot! In Mr. Mohammed's eyes does Commissioner Gibbs represent the ethnic composition of Trinidad and Tobago? Furthermore was Commissioner Gibbs promoted through the ranks based on meritocracy? Why was he chosen over an officer like say Stephen Williams? It should be noted that it was the Government and not the PSC that was instrumental in the appointment of Mr. Gibbs as Police Commissioner. Mr. Sharma's claim that we should not shoot the messenger is directly at odds with the Government's message via the release from the Prime Minister's Office that Mr. Mohammed's statements run against the very grain of this government. How can Mr. Mohammed be a 'viable messenger' and how can his message be 'worthy of recognition' while at the same time running against the philosophy of the Government of which Mr. Sharma is a member?

Dr. Roodal Moonilal has indicated that Mr. Mohammed's statements can spark a healthy debate, but the question is a healthy debate about what? What was valuable of Mr. Mohammed's claims of feeling intimidated because there were too many 'Africans' in top positions of the police service, especially when Mr. Mohammed gave no credible reason for feeling intimidated other than the fact that the officers he was referring too were not of his ethnicity?. How can Dr. Moonilal say Mr. Mohammed's statements can spark a healthy debate when the Government's leadership via the Office of the Prime Minister has denounced Mr. Mohammed's statements as 'reckless, senseless, divisive and serving no purpose?' Both Sharma's and Moonilal's comments run counter to the sentiments of another top Government member in the person of Mr. Warner who's comments preceded the release from the Prime Minister's Office, stating that Mr. Mohammed's remarks has hurt him deeply and has caused much embarrassment to their Government. With all these different messages emanating from the People's Partnership it's almost as if parts of this Government exists in parallel dimensions, each entity distinct from the other with it's own agenda.

It would appear from the different sentiments being expressed by this Government that it is a Government speaking with a forked tongue, a Government with multiple heads, positions and agendas. It would also seem that the various heads of this Government are ignorant to the agendas of each other. As a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago I for one am dissatisfied with the release from the Prime Minister's Office and the position of this Government with regards Nizam Mohammed's statements and tenure as Chairman of the Police Service Commission. Until this Government takes collective responsibility for unleashing Mr. Mohammed on the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, revoke his appointment and speak in unison as a Government, I can only conclude that the release from the Prime Minister's Office is nothing more than 'lip service', a gesture of appeasement to calm the masses while not categorically condemning Mr. Mohammed's claims. The failure of this Government to surgically remove itself from the sentiments of Mr. Mohammed can only lead one to conclude that Mr. Mohammed's comments does in fact reflect the present agenda of this Government irrespective of whether all the key players are aware of what that agenda is. ©

Nizam Mohammed Must Go!

I have called my lawyer and put him on standby prior to publishing this blog in the event that the police comes knocking on my door for daring to call for the removal of a public official who has brought his office into disrepute. This is an open letter to the President of my beloved Republic Trinidad and Tobago, to revoke as soon as is convenient to him the appointment of Nizam Mohammed as Chairman of the Police Service Commission. Mr. Mohammed first brought this office into disrepute by blatantly disregarding the lawful instruction of an officer of law and then subsequently using his position as Chairman of the PSC to undermine and subvert the course of justice, not to mention demoralise the two officers in question along with the entire police force. In addition, Mr. Mohammed's actions have fueled the perception in this country that the law is made only for the lower classes while the higher classes and those in high office can do whatever they wish without compunction, such a perception can only further fuel the already pervasive air of unlawfulness currently blowing through this land and the Prime Minister and Minister of National Security will do well to take heed.

Mr. Mohammed further brought his office into disrepute by going to Parliament last week and making a declaration that he is going to seek to adjust the racial imbalance of the police service because East Indians are 50% of the population. Firstly I have no idea where Mr. Mohammed got his statistics from but East Indians are roughtly 40% of the T&T population. Secondly I find it quite ominous that Mr. Mohammed would not suggest that more people of mixed descent be promoted into the police service because apart from the roughly 38% African population we have a mixed population of roughly 20%. What about the minority groups? Does Mr. Mohammed not want to see more caucasians, chinese and syrians in the police service? His focus on the East Indian population alone has revealed all too well what his inner thoughts are and the citizens of this country would do well to disregard and rebuke sentiments as espoused by the likes of Mr. Mohammed. There is no place in a cosmopolitan country such as Trinidad and Tobago for comments and sentiments such as Mr. Mohammed's. Secondly Mr. Mohammed's vow to interfere with the racial composition of the police service should be of grave concern to all citizens because that is not in the remit of his office as the purpose of the PSC is to review the performance of the COP, his deputies and the police service as a whole. Once Mr. Mohammed commences on his crusade of 'racial fixing' he will be stepping outside his bounds and then he would be doing the very thing he seems to want to allude others are doing i.e. giving preferential treatment to people of East Indian descent while sidelining persons of African descent and all other ethnic groups.

In addition Mr. Mohammed's aim should actually be the reverse, i.e. ensuring that there are sufficient Africans, Syrians, Chinese etc in the police service. In countries like England and the USA there are provisions for minority groups and a certain percentage of government positions are allocated for minority groups to ensure that the dominant ethnic group does not over power the minority groups. Mr. Mohammed seems to be advocating the reverse of that, because there are more East Indians than any other ethnic group in Trinidad & Tobago that they ought to dominate all aspects of our country. This indeed is a very dangerous advocation being made by Mr. Mohammed and all citizens ought to pay very close attention to the response of the Prime Minister who is of East Indian descent and who's core supporters are of East Indian descent. Out of curiousity would Mr. Mohammed advocate there being less East Indian doctors and more African doctors? How about lawyers? I wonder if Mr. Mohammed would be happy if someone charges that there should be more Africans and Mixed Peoples in the police service and government jobs than East Indians as the 38% Africans and 20% mixed gives you 58%!!

Mr. Mohammed has charged that he feels threatened by newspaper articles calling for his removal and has suggested that the Police Commissioner as well as the Minister of National security 'act' on it. Whatever Mr. Mohammed means by that I do hope he understands that he is a public official and any citizen can exercise their democratic rights in whatever way and call for his removal if we feel he is abusing his power or bringing his office in disrepute. Whether we choose to print 8 pages a day in the Express, write a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister, President or any of our Members of Parliament that is our constitutional right! I do not recall Mr. Mohammed or any current public official calling on the Police Comissioner a year ago to deal with all those people who were publishing weekly full page ads about Mr. Manning and Calder Hart. The mere fact that Mr. Mohammed does not seem to understand the constitutional rights of citizens when dealing with public officials is further proof that he is a public official gone astray and he needs to be removed forthwith! No public official is above the law or beyond criticism and the minute we start to go down that slippery slope, the end result is sure to be of dire consequences. ©

Ghosts of Governments Past

Once again, after a politician of East Indian descent has ‘risen’ in the form of Mrs. Kamla Persad-Biessessar due to the overwhelming support from the beautiful citizens of this country of ‘all races’, we have a ‘political zombie’, rising up from the political cemetery in the form of former UNC Government Minister Mr. Trevor Sudama to preach about the plight of the Indo community at the hands of a racist PNM. A PNM that has had people of East Indian descent in its cabinet as well as holding top positions in the hierarchy of the political party itself. Is Mr. Sudama saying that the nine Indian Cabinet Ministers of the recent PNM Government and PNM stalwarts such as Ralph Maraj, Jerry Narace, Errol Mahabir and Kamaluddin Mohammed are Indian sell outs? What about Christine Sahadeo, Christine Kangaloo and Mustapha Abdul-Hamid? And where would Mr. Sudama put Mr. Parsanlal’s loyalties after all he’s half Indian half African.

Mr. Sudama has alleged by quoting a ‘commentator’, that where the Indo has done well in education, professions and small business, it has largely been through their own efforts and not because of any special favours from the PNM government. Are we to take it then from Mr. Sudama that the Indo population does not utilize GATE? Do they not apply and attend the University of the West Indies, COSTATT and UTT like their fellow citizens of other races? Do they not utilize the government’s small business loan programs? The interesting thing about people like Mr. Sudama is they never seem quite capable of articulating that which they claim, that the PNM as a government has systematically excluded the Indo community.

All the services provided under the PNM Government was and has been available to all citizens of Trinidad and Tobago be them African, Indian, Syrian, Dougla or Chinese, and this not only pertains to education it also pertains to government grants for people with differently abled children, CDAP etc. If it is said that the PNM is racist against the Indos then who they favour the Africans? If so then what is the status with the East West Corridor? No scholar worth his degree can accuse the PNM of being biased against Indians while refusing to put a big question mark over the East West Corridor which is comprised primarily of people of African descent, who have always supported the PNM and who have been systematically ignored by the PNM for the last 41 years.

Mr. Sudama then went on to make reference to the racial composition of the various State Boards, the police and army. Apart from the fact that Mr. Sudama made no mention as to how many Africans were placed on state boards when he was a Government Minister under the Basdeo Panday UNC, this is an age old accusation that has been repeatedly refuted with facts and as I pointed out in a July article in 2009 the statistics from the Central Statistical Office and Council for the Professionals clearly show there being a disparity of Indo Trinidadians in certain fields as most probably being a circumstance of cultural choices. For instance as doctors a whopping 80% of our doctors are of East Indian descent, where as in fields such as Nutritionists the percentage was 22% which suggest that this field is practiced mostly by citizens of Afro and other ethnic groups.

In addition Indos seem more drawn to technological fields for instance at UTT a technical Institution, 80% of the graduates were of East Indian descent while the student population at UWI is only 35% Indo. Even though some Indos have gravitated to the protective services this is still an area that is chosen as a career field by people of African descent. Therefore one cannot reasonably expect to have many Indos holding senior positions if the employment population is predominantly of another race. Shall the African community along with the Mixed, Syrians et al now accuse the UNC of racial bias because 80% of this country’s doctors are of East Indian descent?

Mr. Sudama further makes reference to Mr. Manning’s vetoing of Indos to top positions in the public service as further proof that the PNM had something against Indos, but it is interesting to note that he makes no reference of Mr. Manning’s repeated unceremonious and unexplained vetoing of Mr. Williams as Police Commissioner and Mrs. Carla Antoine-Browne’s appointment as Director of Public Prosecution, both of whom are of African descent. It is this type of wish washy analysis by people like Trevor Sudama that does more hurt than good to the ethnic fabric of T&T.

With regard the refusal to grant a radio license to the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, on this point at least Mr. Sudama is correct in saying it was a blatant act of bias, but bias for what purpose? Was it because it was an East Indian organisation requesting it, or because it was an East Indian organisation from the core support of the PNM’s political foe the United National Congress? How come when East Indians like Mr. Hafeez Karamath get big time contracts under the PNM it is not perceived as racism but when the PNM refuses to grant the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, an organisation openly supportive of the UNC a radio license it is perceived as racist as opposed to political? That is nothing short of selective interpretation by the likes of individuals like Mr. Sudama who rather than engage in nation building prefer to embark upon a path of speratists.

The biggest joke in Mr. Sudama’s article is when he makes reference to the crowd at the PNM’s political gatherings being comprised mainly of African descent and boast about the fact that the People’s Partnership had a much greater cross-ethnic appeal and that the PNM must embark on a ‘journey of transformation’ in order to re-engineer and reconstruct itself to appeal to Indo voters. This from man who was part and parcel of the Basdeo Panday UNC that was fixated on the Indo Community and the Indo Community alone. Let’s be real, the People’s Partnership is a new kid on the block and more specifically it was the only ticket to Parliament for the UNC. What Mr. Sudama should ask himself is if the UNC was so all inclusive why did it take so many years for them as a political party to appeal to the other races in the country?!

Yet still the core support of the UNC cum People’s Partnership is still predominantly of East Indian descent. I supported the People’s Partnerhip, I attended the rally in Fyzabad and I could count the amount of people including myself who were not East Indian, I felt like an exotic flower, like a tulip standing out in a field of roses! And when one looked at the People’s Partnership’s political rallies and their election night victory party, even though the election results showed people of all ethnicities voted for the Partnership the crowds was 99% East Indian probably with exception of Mr. Warner, Gypsy Peters and Maakandal Daaga all of whom were on stage! So Mr. Sudama I say to you, one ought not to throw stones when one lives in a glass house!

It is a crying shame that at a time like this when the country is actively involved in a critical form of political metamorphosis, blossoming and shining like a woman with child, full of potential and promise that people like Trevor Sudama should seek to invoke baser emotions in an attempt to stir up trouble. Just as I was certain there would be no hope for political revitalisation in T&T should the PNM regain government in 2010, so too I'm certain should the People's Partnership not keep it's distance from people like Mr. Sudama it will not only be the downfall of the Partnership, but will also signify the derailing of all that the Partnership promises to be for the people of Trinidad and Tobago. People like Trevor Sudama are what I refer to as the political un-dead. They are political zombies vying for attention in the wilderness. Mr. Sudama is in political purgatory, haunted by his own racial insecurities and fallacies and this beautiful rainbow country will do well to look forward and celebrate life with the living rather than be distracted with the corrupt soothings of Ghosts of Governments past. ©